the assessee advanced interest free loan to its sister concern amounting to Rs.5 lacs. According to the Tribunal, there was nothing on record to show that the loans were given to the sister concern by the assessee-firm out of its Own Funds and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Munjal Sales Corporation Vs.CIT (Supreme Court)
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) read with rules 13 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 104/2007-Customs, dated the 14th September, 2007, published in the Gazette of India vide number G.S.R. 600(E), dated the 14th September, 2007.
Notification No. 3/2008-Service Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.41/2007-Service Tax, dated the 6th October, 2007 which was published in the Gazette of
For the purposes of this notification, “rate of exchange” applicable for the purposes of calculation of such anti-dumping duty shall be the rate which is specified in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), issued from time to time, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Customs Act 1962 (52 of 1062), and the relevant date for the determination of the rate of exchange shall be the date of presentation of the bill of entry under Section 46 of the said Customs Act.
The undersigned is directed to refer to Circular No. 752/68/2003-CX dated 01.10.03 (as amended) on the above subject. This circular prescribes monetary limits of Central Excise Officers at various levels for adjudicating of cases under sections 11A and 33 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Civil – Specific performance – Validity of – Stamp paper – Opinion of experts – Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 – Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Plaintiff-Appellant alleged that the First Defendant agreed to sell suit property by an agreement and received some amount as advance – Plaintiff issued a notice to execute the sale deed and receive the balance amount – Defendant denied the agreement and executed the sale deed in favour of Second Defendant – Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance – Defendant contended that the sale agreement put forth by the Plaintiff was forged and concocted – Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale put forth by Plaintiff was false –
